Stumble the talk

I am sure you have heard of the concept "walk the talk". I for one no longer think there is any merit in such a concept.

Perfect example: John Lennon sings about peace, love and no possessions. But he was very rich and apprently mistreated his child.

So what?

How does that stain his message? Every single human being alive is crippled by weakness - some more or less. That is why we are here. In this game, this experience.

Another example (but this point I am making can be applied to anything):

If a heavy smoker preach that smoking is bad for your health he is a hypocrite. Is he? No he is not. The wisdom is true. Smoking cigarettes is not good for your health. And even though he doesn't "walk the talk" he "stumbles the talk". He is at least in the knowing what the wisdom is, even if he fails to follow it. But he tries and at least he sends the message out into the world.

And the message is always more important than the messenger.

Last edited by Awani; 02-08-2016 at 11:40 PM.

Donít let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.

When a person does something that could be classed as positive, they always have to defend any other action they have. But a person that does NOTHING, don't have to defend anything.

I think such attacks on people that do positive things stem from the attackers inherent guilt.

For example I do a lot of work to help the environment and the rainforest, and recently I was eating lunch with a colleague. I had some Thai food with shrimps, and this fucking nitwit said: "...should you be eating shrimps considering what you do for a living..."

I said nothing and smiled, and ate the shrimp. But what I really could have said was:

"...oh really, what about the leather in your shoes? What about the children who made that shirt, what about the chemicals that dyed your trousers blue, what about... actually it does not matter about those things because you are just a fucking consumer and add nothing to anything... cunt..."

You see, when someone does something positive [no matter what it is], small minded people always have to find a fault with that person. This is very common.

Humans are sooooo boring.

Donít let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.

Perhaps when people are attacked for doing a thing it is because of the threat of uncertainty it produces. What I mean by this is if a person or group choose a failure outcome but this is in some way manageable they have achieved certainty and have a comfort zone. If someone try's to do a thing that could lead to either success or failure they produce anxiety in others, loss of certainty and no comfort zone. So the doing person becomes a threat to the 'managed failure' person or group and the response is aggression by personal attack and criticism on the person doing a thing.

Hmmmmm I shall try to be more succinct. Those who embrace the comforting certainty of failure are upset by those who are prepared to face uncertainty and the possibility of success. Those threatened in this way respond with aggression, cynicism and may exert pressure to force conformity.

Yes I agree with that. But on a simplistic level if I would tell someone I do not drink they automatically assume I don't smoke. Or if I am a vegan they assume I don't drive a car. Or if I am a feminist they are surprised to know I like to participate in street brawls. Etc etc.

If you go out of the norm you have to live up to sainthood, but if you are the norm you will never be questioned.

Donít let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.

I think the social pressure towards conformity and stereotyping is increasing and also kind of flares up and has intense periods. Toffler's future shock explains why this kind of social behaviour is intensifying. As cultural norms and values change at an ever increasing pace their is a need for a stable identity as a kind of bulwark to give a person stability in an ever more bewildering social environment. This in part at least explains why a given thing eg veganism or say going to bars to have a fight are expected to be attached to a whole constellation of other values and beliefs; a paradigm. Due to this increasing future shock people adopt rigid stereotypical attitudes and beliefs and expect the same in others. By doing this people are seeking to reduce anxiety due to uncertainty caused by future shock I think.

Going slightly off topic this is one explanation for religious radicalisation that is occurring currently. If you have a teenager in a family that has immigrated to a more shall we say pluralist culture and has been raised in a traditional Muslim manner. They have the cultural adjustment of any immigrant to a different society and culture as well as the future shock effects all are experiencing in that society. This during teenage years makes them more persuadable by a simplistic religious creed (radical Islam) and can bring about radicalisation to the point of suicidal aggression.

...this is one explanation for religious radicalisation that is occurring currently...

I would not call it currently, it has been going on for a long time. The whole of the United States is built upon religious radicalisation. Radicalisation does not have to imply killing people either, but is basically a form of major brainwashing. USA is a theocracy in disguise, no doubt about it. Even if the leaders are fake-Christians, they still give the appearance of being a Christian which in turn forces the majority to adapt.

USA also has a propaganda about "supporting the tropps", which is a joke and complete bullshit. And the "greatest democracy in the world" slogan that is nailed into the spine of every American, which is also complete bullshit.

Radicalisation turned status quo I guess.

Donít let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.

I think you're on to a good point, but I also think that a lot of things come out of ignorance. For instance, the production of solar panels in the far east produces a LOT of waste products that are "harmful" to the environment, depending on your world view. The polarization of everything into "good" and "bad" I think is a driving factor, instead of seeing things in color.
I acknowledge the inherent problems with solar technology, and I know some of its dark secrets, but I'll still be buying solar panels (hopefully next year) for my property.

Like people that bitch about oil companies, but there's been almost no push to build a car that runs on other fuels. There's been some progress yes, but most of us don't want to spend $200 to "fill up the tank." And we don't want to live without an abundance of plastic.

Same goes for the "save the trees" movement. This comes up a lot in my writing groups with people not wanting to print out copies of their manuscript to edit with a pen. They always talk about how they are "saving the trees," but there are more trees in the US than there were when Columbus landed on this side of the world (I'm not speaking for Brazil or other countries). Wood products are grown for these purposes on "tree farms" (I've also seen and worked around these). And then there's the biomass question, where a proper pasture environment can produce more photosynthetic products acre for acre, but let me stop before I get too deep into that rabbit hole.

"Good" and "Bad" are the forms. They are the archetypes of these thoughts. So I don't question people's infatuation with plastic and packaging, or their polar nature. However, when I meet someone who wants to dig a little deeper, we can research and learn together, and tease a little color out of the picture. Suddenly the black and white photo becomes a colorful source of meditation on a topic, rather than jumping in to take a side and then fighting for it by screaming on social media.

I'm also a smoker who will immediately recommend that others don't start this habit.